I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the proportion of fixed-width layouts will *increase* over time, as we build more sites for tablets that imitate traditional print design (how many liquid layouts have you seen in print magazines..?). Responsive layouts are most useful in data-intensive applications that can utilize the increased screen real estate of powerful desktops -- but they are fairly niche.
I was using percentages before RWD was even mentioned. The only time I'd ever use a fixed width development process is if the client is super fussy about such things like a px for px guide being matched. Normally I sit down with everyone I work with (including the client) and discuss the matter before making a decision.
Normally a front-end guide will go a long way, building the site elements on a page for the client to see their site as a whole. This helps them realise and understand the choices we make and I've never had a client say that I was wrong after showing them how easy it is to manage a fluid percentage build.
I don't agree that we need to charge more for this service but it does take more time to do it correctly with testing and bug fixing etc. But again talking to the client and your own team helps everyone understand the choices made in the front-end build and everyone is a winner :)
If the client is willing to pay for it, then absolutely. If not, then you get a fixed width. New technique should be charged more, it's after all, more variables to account for.
fjpoblam - 12 years ago
Does max-width count as fixed-width? If so, then, yes: always. It's a mainstay of my mobile-first approach and *seems* to work, thus far.
Clients will ask more and more for responsive design as the number of visitors using a mobile device is increasing drastically. Moreover, the screen size of mobile devices is also increasing, making web surfing more enjoyable.
To add something to my previous comment, I looked at Chad Busby's website after submitting the comment. Chad, you site is great! But I think you might misunderstand what responsive web design is. Your site could very easily be responsive. I viewed it on a 15-inch laptop screen and there was a lot of space around the edges, so I could only imagine what it would look like on my desktop. It doesn't look bad, but there is a lot of space you could be utilizing!
I am surprised by these results. We always create responsive designs. We don't always make something as small as mobile but even just the difference between our laptop monitors and desktop monitors deserves a little difference in the size of the design.
Unlike Mike I do not consider this a fad. Why would it be? As technology is changing and new devices are being produced, there will only be more sizes we have to deal with as designers and developers.
So far, as a business that has been open for about a year, we have not come across something that didn't need to be responsive. I'm curious what Chad Busby means by "fixed-width is necessary for my design". I feel like in this day and age, if that is the case, then your design isn't working.
kvd - 12 years ago
50-50
The last 4 projects were responsive design (2 older projects which were given an update, 2 new projects from scratch).
Our internal CSS-framework also got a major update and is now responsive and completely percentage-based.
Not that different from the early days of web standards when some studios made the extra effort to learn and adapt away from tables and others fought it saying that it was 'too expensive' or that 'you'll never get it out the door if you spend all this time learning new ways to build stuff'. Tables and spacer GIFs are just fine, right?
The fact is, responsive design is just the current process on the way to making a more universal web. You can either learn it, adapt to new working methods and continue to grow and change, or you can sit back and keep building everything to 960px until you've been completely left behind.
Your choice.
GD - 12 years ago
I agree with Greg
Mike - 12 years ago
Disappoints me to see some people say there is no reason to not make every site not responsive. Makes me wonder where people work.
Greg - 12 years ago
Adaptive design, mobile first, media queries, emotions, html5 and CSS3, jQuery latest plugins, grids and shiny frameworks, SEO and so many other good practices...
If you wanna respect/follow/apply them all, well... you never launch.
Fixed layout here until a client will invest into adaptive.
I think (and hope) the web standards and the way designers code will become more "universal" in the future so designers don't need to adapt everything to 20 different devices.
Michael Smith - 12 years ago
Many of the designers I work with are not *web* designers. They don't seem interested in learning about responsive design, but are quite adept at making fixed width designs that look OK on the web and present well to clients. If I had a say in the hiring process we'd have *web* designers, not just designers, but I don't, so we don't.
Alas clients and budgets dictate the way we design projects. As much as I agree with the principles of responsive and adaptive design, we only really bring it into commercial jobs if the client requests it. Either that or we can demonstrate that there is a return on the extra investment needed.
frank - 12 years ago
my ipad now has a great resolution than my desktop computer (which is a 17"mbp).
Screens on all devices are just getting better and better. I think anything anything that is based on resolution alone is missing the plot and potentially going to be superceeded quite soon. if its really about usuabilty then it needs a solution which looks and responds to PPI not just resolution
Well as always it depends on the project, the target public... even the client. You guys have no idea of the type of clients we deal with here in Brazil.
It's all down to budget. If the budget allows for the site to be designed to include responsive elements then that's great. Otherwise it's fixed-layout all the way.
Knut - 12 years ago
No excuse for making fixed width sites anymore. I only use pixels for max-width and border values.
Responsive design will be around for as long as people use mobile phones to surf the web.
After just completing our first responsive site we will try to to do this for every project moving forward. We believe that all sites should be able to be viewed properly on all devices whenever possible.
Definitely trying to educate my clients on the benefits of going with a mobile-first approach (particularly for new sites and start-ups), however for larger, established projects where I have less control over these decisions, I have no option but to go fixed width.
Just because there is this big responsive fad out there at the moment, doesn't mean it should take over. Many of the websites we design do not suit such layouts, primarily because they do not have the content to fill a full width page.
Having said that I still try and make my sites responsive when I can. If I start the website at 960px I'll always try and make it so it can adapt down (without re-designing too much). This basically means making sure images, navigation, header, search bar positioning etc all adapt down to whatever size the screen is. It really doesn't take that much effort to do this sort of thing in it's most simplest form so why not?!
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the proportion of fixed-width layouts will *increase* over time, as we build more sites for tablets that imitate traditional print design (how many liquid layouts have you seen in print magazines..?). Responsive layouts are most useful in data-intensive applications that can utilize the increased screen real estate of powerful desktops -- but they are fairly niche.
I was using percentages before RWD was even mentioned. The only time I'd ever use a fixed width development process is if the client is super fussy about such things like a px for px guide being matched. Normally I sit down with everyone I work with (including the client) and discuss the matter before making a decision.
Normally a front-end guide will go a long way, building the site elements on a page for the client to see their site as a whole. This helps them realise and understand the choices we make and I've never had a client say that I was wrong after showing them how easy it is to manage a fluid percentage build.
I don't agree that we need to charge more for this service but it does take more time to do it correctly with testing and bug fixing etc. But again talking to the client and your own team helps everyone understand the choices made in the front-end build and everyone is a winner :)
If the client is willing to pay for it, then absolutely. If not, then you get a fixed width. New technique should be charged more, it's after all, more variables to account for.
Does max-width count as fixed-width? If so, then, yes: always. It's a mainstay of my mobile-first approach and *seems* to work, thus far.
Clients will ask more and more for responsive design as the number of visitors using a mobile device is increasing drastically. Moreover, the screen size of mobile devices is also increasing, making web surfing more enjoyable.
I think there may be confusion over the term "fixed width". Does it mean a single fixed width or that each step in a responsive design is fixed?
To add something to my previous comment, I looked at Chad Busby's website after submitting the comment. Chad, you site is great! But I think you might misunderstand what responsive web design is. Your site could very easily be responsive. I viewed it on a 15-inch laptop screen and there was a lot of space around the edges, so I could only imagine what it would look like on my desktop. It doesn't look bad, but there is a lot of space you could be utilizing!
I am surprised by these results. We always create responsive designs. We don't always make something as small as mobile but even just the difference between our laptop monitors and desktop monitors deserves a little difference in the size of the design.
Unlike Mike I do not consider this a fad. Why would it be? As technology is changing and new devices are being produced, there will only be more sizes we have to deal with as designers and developers.
So far, as a business that has been open for about a year, we have not come across something that didn't need to be responsive. I'm curious what Chad Busby means by "fixed-width is necessary for my design". I feel like in this day and age, if that is the case, then your design isn't working.
50-50
The last 4 projects were responsive design (2 older projects which were given an update, 2 new projects from scratch).
Our internal CSS-framework also got a major update and is now responsive and completely percentage-based.
Not that different from the early days of web standards when some studios made the extra effort to learn and adapt away from tables and others fought it saying that it was 'too expensive' or that 'you'll never get it out the door if you spend all this time learning new ways to build stuff'. Tables and spacer GIFs are just fine, right?
The fact is, responsive design is just the current process on the way to making a more universal web. You can either learn it, adapt to new working methods and continue to grow and change, or you can sit back and keep building everything to 960px until you've been completely left behind.
Your choice.
I agree with Greg
Disappoints me to see some people say there is no reason to not make every site not responsive. Makes me wonder where people work.
Adaptive design, mobile first, media queries, emotions, html5 and CSS3, jQuery latest plugins, grids and shiny frameworks, SEO and so many other good practices...
If you wanna respect/follow/apply them all, well... you never launch.
Fixed layout here until a client will invest into adaptive.
I think (and hope) the web standards and the way designers code will become more "universal" in the future so designers don't need to adapt everything to 20 different devices.
Many of the designers I work with are not *web* designers. They don't seem interested in learning about responsive design, but are quite adept at making fixed width designs that look OK on the web and present well to clients. If I had a say in the hiring process we'd have *web* designers, not just designers, but I don't, so we don't.
Alas clients and budgets dictate the way we design projects. As much as I agree with the principles of responsive and adaptive design, we only really bring it into commercial jobs if the client requests it. Either that or we can demonstrate that there is a return on the extra investment needed.
my ipad now has a great resolution than my desktop computer (which is a 17"mbp).
Screens on all devices are just getting better and better. I think anything anything that is based on resolution alone is missing the plot and potentially going to be superceeded quite soon. if its really about usuabilty then it needs a solution which looks and responds to PPI not just resolution
Well as always it depends on the project, the target public... even the client. You guys have no idea of the type of clients we deal with here in Brazil.
It's all down to budget. If the budget allows for the site to be designed to include responsive elements then that's great. Otherwise it's fixed-layout all the way.
No excuse for making fixed width sites anymore. I only use pixels for max-width and border values.
Responsive design will be around for as long as people use mobile phones to surf the web.
We're converting to a fully-responsive design - working on mobile and working to be device-agnostic demands a fluid layout.
Many clients ask for special designs which are not always very simple (look at the bottom of page of the site "Les sites de covoiturage du réseau Ecolutis").
And clients you don't see in the list (big companies with private carpooling sites) still use IE6 and quite old screens...
After just completing our first responsive site we will try to to do this for every project moving forward. We believe that all sites should be able to be viewed properly on all devices whenever possible.
I don't think there's a reason not to if you have tools like http://cssgrid.net out there that make it flippin easy to use responsive design.
Media Queries!
Definitely trying to educate my clients on the benefits of going with a mobile-first approach (particularly for new sites and start-ups), however for larger, established projects where I have less control over these decisions, I have no option but to go fixed width.
I've not had any clients request responsive widths to date, so I've only used it as and when I feel a project really needs it.
1024px is still the default size for most of my projects, so I end up designing fixed 980px wide websites.
Just because there is this big responsive fad out there at the moment, doesn't mean it should take over. Many of the websites we design do not suit such layouts, primarily because they do not have the content to fill a full width page.
Having said that I still try and make my sites responsive when I can. If I start the website at 960px I'll always try and make it so it can adapt down (without re-designing too much). This basically means making sure images, navigation, header, search bar positioning etc all adapt down to whatever size the screen is. It really doesn't take that much effort to do this sort of thing in it's most simplest form so why not?!
Clients demand it.
fixed-width is necessary for my design.